Dozy,
the cost savings in pilot training that Airbus touted with the introduction of their FBW types had absolutely nothing to do with increased use of automation, and everything to do with the unprecedented level of commonality in flight deck layout and "feel" between their narrowbody and widebody fleet.
I don't think you interpreted Cool Guys comment correctly:
They probably never dreamed that airline cost saving measures would actually ban pilots from manual flying.
In fact, sadly, airlines have banned manual flying unless some extreme reason calls for it, the gospel according to airline bean counters. Then the airline lawyers chime in with the possibility/probability of tort action resulting in manual flying should something go wrong, not being in auto-flight.
IMHO, what wasn't recognized in the '80s was where the source of pilots was going to come from in the later decades. While Gordon, Bernard and others of the '80s came out of the military experiences of flight training, discipline and introduction to aircraft testing, far more pilots today emerge from commercial, for profit, flight schools and proceed into commercial airlines starting on the commuter level at poverty level pay, without their military experiences. Did Gordon and Bernard take this into account when developing the Airbus FBW systems and sub-systems, or was it based on their personal experiences? What kind of personalities did they have in their leadership roles at Airbus? Was Gordon and Bernard really open to changes/criticisms to the FBW systems they promoted, or were they overbearing/dismissive to subordinates with their supposed greater knowledge and experiences?
Airbus Industries indeed pushed the reduction of training costs to airlines, even beyond that of what was happening with two seat cockpits, i.e., elimination of the flight engineer.
You have an opinion, but you are not the final word in this discussion.